News Copy, New York

New York Searches For The Tea Party: Where Will All Those Voters Go?

The results of a poll by Republican Carl Paladino's campaign are in and New Yorkers want a new independent party to be called the Taxed Enough Already (T.E.A.) Party.

The next step for Paladino's campaign and many other groups is forming this party.  That will require hundreds of volunteers gathering signatures for a new party line.  If it is formed, the fractures among voters will be felt on Election Day.

It seems that a growing number of people want to vote for anyone but the usual suspects.

The Disenfranchised Arrive

I predict 10-15 percent of New Yorkers will be voting on this line, drawing the lion's share of the votes from the Democrat and Independence Parties.  The Conservative Party will survive because it has a solid platform.  The Independence Party is in trouble.

Some political math:

35-50 percent of the American public votes in most elections.  New York tends to have less residents voting, so it's safe to say that 50-65 percent of New York doesn't vote with any regularity.

I am not going to do a Glenn Beck but imagine a semi-circle from the middle to the right and the left.  Somewhere at the bottom of that uncompleted circle is a lot more voters who feel disenfranchised on the right and the left.  Some are rightful libertarians.  Some are anarchists.  Others are socialists or leftists in search of a European country.

As for the conservative side of the spectrum, I am not listing all the issues and all the complaints.  Those voters have three places to go:  Republican, Conservative and Tea Party lines.

If Republicans lose any ground, it's their own gosh darn fault.

Just refer to the Republican National Committee's platform and all the parts of that platform ignored by a cross-section of Republican leaders in New York and other places.

That's part of the problem ...

... In addition to the fact that economics is finally driving parts of those 50-65 percent of New Yorkers who rarely vote out to vote.

The other problem?

Many Democrats are either staying home or voting for Republicans because they're tired of the liberals and leftists controlling their party.

But they don't won't to vote on the Republican line.  They're not alone.

Traditionally, 5-10 percent vote on Conservative Party line.  Slightly more, depending on the election and the candidate vote on the Independence Party line.  That's 10-20 percent whose sentiments don't belong to a major party.  Many were fed up over 30 years ago; before Reagan, before Gingrich and long before tea parties.

Remember Ross Perot?

Carl Paladino is Ross Perot with guts and a lot more than charts and graphs.

Paladino is appealing to the social and fiscal conservatives.  He's found a language with the disenfranchised.

What's interesting is how this Conservative/Independence split could flow on Election Day.  The evacuation of one or both of these parties is being predicted, though the departure of many voters from the Democrat and Republican lines is more imminent.

Liberal Republicans are predicting the end of the Conservative Party.  Reformers are predicting the end of the Independence Party.  There seems to be a 20 percent political pot of gold waiting for some independent candidate that will be gained at the expense of someone else's vote totals.

The problem is that the independent vote is ideologically nomadic.

Three Tea Parties:  Split Political Personality

The question is where the escaping Democrats and Republicans will go.

Also, a growing swell of independent voters want to vote on a new line.

Why?

They don't trust existing party leaders.  They either don't like the social issues being discussed at all -- or only want to discuss social issues.   It's the economy and fiscal issues that are driving couch potatoes out their chairs, not abortion or gun control.  However, it's the enthusiasm of social conservatives finding common ground with Constitutionalists and privacy rights libertarians that has fueled the tea party's momentum.

Where is this all going?

There will be three tea party movements but there will be one Tea Party line.  Count on a third to a half of the independent voters within the tea party movement voting Conservative and the rest split between Independence and Tea Party lines.

Fiscal reformers, social conservatives and privacy-obsessed libertarians don't see eye to eye.  In terms of political structures, high taxes help people forget their differences with other fringe movements.  But there are stark differences.

For example, why is there a movement to legalize marijuana within so many tea party organizations?

Radical opportunism explains part of that fringe, including Sarah Palin and Ron Paul playing to these sentiments.  It's playing to the crowd but what crowd?

Another example, how does a pacifist crowd drawing anti-war support mind-meld so well with the Constitutionalists?

Some of those Constitutionalists are isolationalist and some of those isolationists have leaders who cater on occasion to bigotry and separatist "know-nothing" ideals.  So are they Constitutionalists concerned about the war on terror or a new generation of anti-war activists not interested in fighting this war on terror?

Then there is abortion, "settled law" for some and murder for others. 

Those advocating the right to bear arms have a party line to vote on: The New York State Conservative Party. Those advocating the right to life also can vote Conservative.  However, the fringe issues of tea parties could end up being an island of lost ideas.

It's likely that the Independence Party will be the big loser this year.

As for future elections, this French Revolution will have a lot of Robespierres.

As the local taxes are higher due to less Federal and State aid, will the tea party revolts continue outside our local municipal halls?  Democrats are banking on that day.  Republicans with sense are already doing the math and understand how a reverse "trickle-down" could cause further anarchy at the polls.

All I know is that Carl Paladino and a new party are drawing from a voting public with a split personality on many issues.  The Buffalo businessman can be applauded for being the most ideologically consistent candidate running for governor but the movement supporting him has fractures just waiting to happen.

As for the tea party movement, where will all those voters go?

Petitions Circulate Throughout New York State: The Race To Get On Ballot

Between now and the middle of July, most civically engaged individuals close to campaigns are circulating petitions for candidates to get on the ballot.

What this means is that we're all too busy to blog ... maybe.

Please post some comments on the petition process, if you have the time or happen to be one of the lucky ones in New York not worrying about getting people's signatures on petitions.

There has to be a better way.

Washington Post Column On Rolling Stone Interview: "Don't Blame McChrystal, Blame Obama"

The following column in The Washington Post's blog Post Partisan is too compelling to be sound byted -- so News Copy is posting it in its entirety.

The Rolling Stone article, entitled "The Runaway General" rips the curtain off any illusion of respect between the White House and at least one general on the ground overseas.

Don't blame McChrystal, blame Obama

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal should not lose his job because of the article about him in Rolling Stone magazine. If anyone deserves blame for the latest airing of the administration’s internal feuds over Afghanistan, it is President Obama.

For months Obama has tolerated deep divisions between his military and civilian aides over how to implement the counterinsurgency strategy he announced last December. The divide has made it practically impossible to fashion a coherent politico-military plan, led to frequent disputes over tactics and contributed to a sharp deterioration in the administration’s relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The virtue of the Rolling Stone article is that Obama may finally have to confront the trouble. But the dismissal of McChrystal would be the wrong outcome. It could spell disaster for the military campaign he is now overseeing in southern Afghanistan, and it would reward those in the administration who have been trying to undermine him, including through media leaks of their own.

Rolling Stone portrays McChrystal as being sharply at odds with Vice President Biden, State Department Afghanistan envoy Richard Holbrooke and U.S. ambassador Karl Ikenberry. Most of its incendiary quotes come not from the general, but his aides -- one of whom resigned Tuesday. McChrystal himself apologized for the article; he was reported to be returning to Washington for a White House meeting on Afghanistan Wednesday.

McChrystal’s enemies were quick to portray him as out of line and likely to be scolded, if not fired, by Obama. My colleague Jonathan Capehart said McChrystal should be ready to resign. But the tensions McChrystal disclosed were not news to anyone who has been following the Afghanistan mission in recent months; I first wrote about them more than a month ago.

Nor is McChrystal the only participant in the feuding who has gone public with his argument. A scathing memo by Ikenberry describing Karzai as an unreliable partner was leaked to the press last fall. At a White House press briefing during Karzai’s visit to Washington last month, the ambassador pointedly refused to endorse the Afghan leader he must working with.

Biden, for his part, gave an interview to Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter in which he said that in July of next year “you are going to see a whole lot of [U.S. troops] moving out.” Yet as Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates tartly pointed out over the weekend, “that absolutely has not been decided.” Instead, Biden was pushing his personal version of the strategy Obama approved, which calls for the beginning of withdrawals next year, with the size and pace to be determined by conditions at that time.

The real trouble is that Obama never resolved the dispute within his administration over Afghanistan strategy. With the backing of Gates and the Pentagon’s top generals, McChrystal sought to apply to Afghanistan the counterinsurgency approach that succeeded over the last three years in Iraq, an option requiring the deployment of tens of thousands more troops. Biden opposed sending most of the reinforcements and argued for a “counterterrorism plus” strategy centered on preventing al-Qaeda from establishing another refuge.

In the end, Obama adopted what is beginning to look like a bad compromise. He approved most of the additional troops that McChrystal sought, but attached the July, 2011 deadline for beginning withdrawals. Since then both sides have been arguing their cases, in private and in public, to the press and to members of Congress.

McChrystal may be at fault for expressing his frustrations to Rolling Stone. He is not at fault for the lack of coherence in the Afghan campaign or the continued feuding over strategy. That is Obama’s responsibility.

By Jackson Diehl  |  June 22, 2010; 11:59 AM ET

In an alternative universe, this San Francisco Chronicle blogger is calling for McChrystal's firing.

Time Square Car Bomb Suspect Pleads Guilty: Warns "We Will Be Attacking U.S."

Leading the news cycle is the President of the United States admonishing a general for a Rolling Stone article.

On the same day, a terrorist confesses, defiantly pleads guilty and warns of future attacks on the United States.

The Huffington Post reported on Faisal Shahzad pleading guilty to a "Mass Destruction" charge:

U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum challenged Shahzad repeatedly with questions such as whether he had worried about killing children in Times Square.

"One has to understand where I'm coming from," Shahzad calmly replied. "I consider myself ... a Muslim soldier."

The 30-year-old described his effort to set off a bomb in an SUV he parked in Times Square on May 1, saying he chose the warm Saturday night because it would be crowded with people he could injure or kill. He said he conspired with the Pakistan Taliban, which provided more than $15,000 to fund his operation.

$15,000 to kill American children.

Shahzad dismissed the judge's question about the children by saying the U.S. didn't care when children were killed in Muslim countries.

"It's a war. I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people," he said. "On behalf of that, I'm revenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die."

Today, Barack Obama cares more about his fragile ego and a Rolling Stone article than an open declaration of war on the United States.

At one point, she asked him if he was sure he wanted to plead guilty.

He said he wanted "to plead guilty and 100 times more" to let the U.S. know that if it did not get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, halt drone attacks and stop meddling in Muslim lands, "we will be attacking U.S."

Today is Obama's legacy.

Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 5.

John Hall Gets Into The Act And Goes After Those Ugly Republicans: Democrat Wants Hayworth To Disavow Barton

As if this political crucifixion scene over the BP Gulf oil spill -- and President Obama's incompetence -- hadn't gotten anymore embittered, Democrat John Hall chose to lay a guilt trip across Republican Nan Hall's bow.

I never thought I would see the day I was roused to come to Ms. Hayworth's defense but after Congressman Eliot Engel's performance yesterday, I'm about ready to take the gloves off against these reactionary liberal Democrats.

The Journal News reported Rep. John Hall, D-Dover Plains, calling on his challenger Nan Hayworth to distance herself from Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) for comments they made concerning BP and the Gulf oil spill.

Memo to John Hall:

Before you admonish a Republican for not admonishing a fellow Republican, take a closer look at your own passivity over President Obama's inaction on the Gulf oil spil.

Same memo to Eliot Engel, who over-dramatized the guilt trip on BP CEO Tony Hayward yesterday to scapegoat Obama's problems anywhere else but the Democratic Party.

Bottom Line:  If the crazy liberal wacko environmentalist like Engel and Hall hadn't pushed oil rigs so far out into the Gulf (and the law was passed during the Clinton administration and renewed with this Democratic Congress), 120 million gallons of oil wouldn't be ruining the Gulf of Mexico right now.

This scapegoating by Democrats of everyone else but themselves has to stop.

Eliot Engel Makes Excuses For Barack Obama: 11-Term Incumbent Ignores Apology And Explanation By BP CEO

It's as if Eliot Engel showed up yesterday just to give BP CEO Tony Hayward a Bronx beating for the Gulf oil spill.

It's doubtful Engel will ever be verbally shaking down Barack Obama.

No doubt, Hayward is wearing the "kick me" sign President Obama finally gave him this week -- and deserves every bit of the grilling he gets on the floor of Congress.

But listen closely to how Congressman Engel, an 11-term incumbent, ignores Hayward's apology and answers to Engel's questions.



"I believe we need to await the results of multiple investigations before we draw conclusions," said Hayward. 

"I want to get to the bottom of this, more than anyone.  I want to learn the lessons.  I want to ensure that we can learn the lessons and that the industry can learn the lessons."

Engel keeps attacking and refuses to acknowledge Hayward's statements, claiming that the BP CEO was evading

"We are conducting a full and comprehensive investigation," Hayward answered.  "It involves a team of more than 50 people. We have shared the results of that investigation, as they become available with this committee and we will continue to do that".

At one point, Engel demands an apology -- and asks if Hayward can admit that decisions were made by BP that were wrong.

Hayward apologized.

"I am very very sorry that this accident ocurred, very sorry.  I deeply regret it.  I deeply regret it for very many reason and I do beieve that it is right to investiate it fully and draw the right conclusions."

After Hayward reminds Engel that one of the investigations is being conducted by the White House, Engel reminds Hayward of his obligations as a CEO.

"But you're the CEO. Shouldn't you not set the tone for the investigation?

Shouldn't Obama?

If only Engel placed the same obligations on President Barack Obama.

Both Business Week and Bloomberg had the same quote by Engel on Obama's speech about the Gulf spill.

The White House and Democratic allies rejected the comparison. And Representative Eliot Engel, a Democrat from New York, said Obama was likely mindful of that criticism when he faced the press yesterday.

The president “probably wanted to just catch up with it and say, ‘Look, I take full responsibility,’ because otherwise his political enemies are attacking him for not doing anything,” Engel said.

CBS News reported New York City Mayor Michael defending Obama -- and also repeated Engel's comments to Hayward.

"It's really an insult for you to come to this committee and evade questions," Engel said. "Can't you just admit there were decisions made that were wrong? Can't you just say 'I'm sorry'? I, like everyone else here, and everyone in America, is thoroughly disgusted."

There was no shortage of apologies from Hayward, but that wasn't enough for Engel.

"I think you're stalling," the Congressman said. "I think you're insulting our intelligence, and I resent it."

Bloomberg emphasized the importance of stopping the leaking oil, rather than attacking everyone associated with it.

Congress Vents America's Anger On BP CEO: Democrats Deflect Away From Obama Impotence

Inevitably, Tony Hayward was going to face America's wrath on the Gulf oil spill -- so what happened in Congress yesterday was rightful anger.

Despite Joe Barton's stutter step to deflect attention away from the problem, Republicans and Democrats alike were speaking for the American people.

The problem is that Democrats were obviously deflecting away from President Barack Obama's political impotence.

Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal called Obama snakebit on the decisions of the day.

"The administration's failure to take impressive action after the spill dinged its reputation for competence. The president's failure to turn things around Tuesday night with a speech damaged his reputation as a man whose rhetorical powers are such that he can turn things around with a speech. He lessened his own mystique."

Noonan pulled no punches, though neither did the usual suspects in the liberal elite media.

Reaction among his usual supporters was, in the words of Time's Mark Halperin, "fierce, unforeseen disappointment." Dan Froomkin of the Huffington Post called the speech "profoundly underwhelming," a "feeble call to action." Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich called the speech "vapid." Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times said the president looked "awkward and robotic." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann famously said "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days." Chris Matthews scored "a lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk." Mr. Olbermann, on Mr. Obama's well-written peroration: "It's nice but, again, how? Where was the 'how' in this speech when the nation is crying out for 'how'?"

By the time Tony Hayward showed up on the floor of Congress, Congress was barking for answers.

But after too many days (60 days and counting), Congress is as angry at Barack Obama as the BP CEO.

Too many days of inaction.

The New York Times and many other news outlets live blogged the grilling of Hayward.

Representative Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat, told Mr. Hayward “it’s really an insult” that he keeps saying that he has to wait for the conclusion of an investigation to answer any detailed questions. Mr. Hayward said that the company is conducting “a full and comprehensive investigation, it involves a team of more than 50 people.”

Mr. Engel complained that BP’s investigation seemed to be taking much too long and said “You’re really insulting our intelligence, with respect,” by not explaining now what went wrong.

Mr. Engel finished by saying “Mr. Hayward, let me just say with all due respect: I, like everyone else here, and everyone else in America, [am] thoroughly disgusted. I think you’re stalling, I think you’re insulting our intelligence and I really resent it.”

It is an insult that Hayward had no answer.

It's as much if an insult that the Democrats in control of Congress took so long to have this hearing, waiting for Obama to act and deflecting the President's failures to act without holding themselves responsible.

60 days and 118 million gallons of oil later, there is no forgiving BP's neglect and failures.

What answers did Barack Obama give the nation this week?  Nada.

The exasperation being felt now is as much the fault of the White House and Congress -- and Congress is controlled by Barack Obama's party.

The Democrats have no choice.  Obama is no longer leading the country, let alone his own party.

Democrats are covering for themselves for November's elections.  It was no surprise that the more liberal House members were particularly ravenous.

Liberal Democrats like Eliot Engel exist in uber-Obama safe districts, 56 points ahead against McCain in the 17th Congressional District.

Yet Engel throws out sound bytes, like political grenades.  Admittedly, there's no denying the need for America to hear their representatives in Congress expressing this kind of Gestalt rage.  Engel was only saying what America wants to say to Tony Hayward.

But Engel chose not to problem-solve at the hearing -- nor did Republican Joe Barton.

Both men chose to vent, scapegoat, hound and search for blame.

What solutions came of either man's approach to the problem?

From the far left to the far right, America is polarized on energy -- but so is our President.  The result has been policies -- starting with the White House administration of William Jefferson Clinton -- that appeased environmentalists by pushing the oil rigs ridiculously too far out into the Gulf ... and at a price.

The Deepwater controversy is as much about a payoff in policy as ill-intentions.  Follow the money.

Congressman Joe Barton also expressed what America is feeling but Joe Barton wasn't allowed his own dissent.

His apology for what he termed a "shakedown" of BP by the Obama administration was misguided -- but how many Americans truly believe that $20 million will be spent entirely on cleaning up the Gulf?

 

How many Americians believe that the Federal government is the best entity to allocate those funds?

Hot Air noted that not all of Barton's problem with the escrow account is blather.

The other pity of Barton’s sympathy act is that it obscures the fact that he has a legitimate complaint about the escrow account. Dan McLaughlin points me to this Journal op-ed which sums things up nicely:

[A] government-administered fund more or less guarantees a more politicized payment process. The escrow administrator will be chosen by the White House, and as such would be influenced by the Administration’s political goals. Those goals would include payments to those harmed by the Administration’s own six-month deep water drilling ban. That reckless policy will soon put thousands of Gulf Coast residents out of work, but the White House knows that BP isn’t liable under current law for those claims. The escrow account is an attempt to tap BP’s funds by other means to pay the costs of Mr. Obama’s own policy blunder.

That point should be made by the GOP — but not at a hearing devoted to BP’s malfeasance, as even Tony Hayward himself seems to understand. In fact, per the Daily Caller piece linked above, Barton’s now issued a written statement specifically apologizing for calling the escrow account a “shakedown.” Thus does a fair knock on the White House evaporate because it was delivered in a tin-eared fashion. Let’s hope the story ends here, please.

Instead, Barton was pressured by Republicans to apologize for his apology. 

Welcome to the House of Political Correctness.

Tea Party Groups Rallying To Support Candidates: Battle With NY GOP Establishment To Get On Ballot?

The Wall Street Journal reported that tea party groups in New York State are out there getting their candidates on the ballot.

"Everybody is focused on the petitions," said Bill Bongiorno, co-founder of the Northern Westchester Tea Party Patriots and the campaign manager for Steve Katz, a tea-party candidate for state Assembly. "We see what the Democrats are but we hoped the Republicans were different....They want to shut people out," he said.

It's hard work.  Done in the hot weather in the already busy month of June, getting a candidate on the ballot is a difficult task for most challengers.

That means finding volunteers who can carry petitions, going door-to-door everyday, meeting with voters, getting signatures on those petitions -- and making certain those petitions survive multiple legal challenges ... from Republican Party leaders (depending on the county).

Yes ... The conservative tea party movement is civically engaged on campaigns -- with parts of New York's Republican establishment fighting them every step of the way.

One would thnk that the natural ally for tea party volunteers would have been the Republican Party -- but the State GOP rejected some of their favorite candidates and some county committees around the state rejected their Congressional and State Legislative candidates.

On a personal note, I found myself physically shook down by a county chair for speaking up for the Conservative Party and defending Congressional candidate Tony Mele (pictured to the right).  In New York, the political lesson seems to be that you can find yourself threatened with a "Bronx beating" by one of the State GOP leaders if you don't follow lockstep like a good Nazi.

And this is happening all over New York State, not as much the physical violence but the willful machinations to ignore the consensus of the people.

It seems like Republicans are allowing repeats of last year's 23rd Congressional race, where Doug Hoffman was rebuffed by county GOP leaders in upstate New York.

Like Mr. Hoffman, Carl Paladino, the Buffalo businessman and gubernatorial candidate whose support is primarily in the conservative grass-roots, was also denied the Republican ballot. He, too, is in the process of mounting a petition battle to fight it out with former U.S. Rep. Rick Lazio in the primary. Former Republican congressman Joe DioGuardi, who represented New York's 20th Congressional District, also failed to get GOP backing in his bid to topple Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. He's also trying to get on the Republican ballot through a petition.

Anthony Mele, a former Ramapo radio-show host and a leader of the Rockland County tea-party group, hoped to run against Rep. Eliot Engel (D., N.Y.) for the congressional district representing the Bronx, Westchester and Rockland counties, but was also rejected by the Republican leadership.

DioGuardi, Paladino, Mele and Katz are all pro-life conservative Republicans but what they have in common is an independent streak from the standard political establishment.

Though a former Congressman, DioGuardi was always regarded as a fiscal maverick in Congress 20 years ago -- first warning the nation about the escalating Federal debt before anyone was paying attention.

DoGuardi was disregarded at the State GOP convention but polls continue to show him overwhelmingly leading a three-way Republican primary for U.S. Senate.

Mele is a former U.S. Army veteran whose choice to run for Congress was counter to the designs of Rockland Republican County Chairman Vincent Reda, who is also the State GOP's First Vice Chair (and also the leader who threatened me with a "Bronx beating").

Mele is on track to raise as much money as the 11-term incumbent in the 17th Congressional District, Democrat Eliot Engel.  More important, Mele as a tea party leader in lower New York State is drawing grass-roots support to wage three primaries in September.

Steve Katz is a veterinarian, the true outsider and non-politician.

Running for the 99th Assembly District, the Yorktown resident found himself in the cross-hairs of a deal by State Senate Republicans that handed the nomination to his primary opponent.

He responded by wiping himself off and preparing for what he originally expected would be the outcome -- Republican and Conservative primaries.

Katz has teamed closely with Assemblyman Greg Ball -- who is primarying the State Senate Republican's pick for the 40th S.D.

Ball has won two Republican primaries over the past two election cycles, so he thrives on this stuff.

Katz with Ball will rely on a local grass-roots operation in the mid-Hudson Valley that draws tremendously from tea party groups.

The truth is that the Katz campaign welcomes the challenge and the primary.

It's a part of the tea party mission that political parties haven't entirely grasped yet.

They welcome a good ol' fashioned patriotic rebellion.

And Paladino?

The Buffalo millionaire is the bull in the china shop -- but people in New York State are craving a Chris Christie type candidate.

Paladino's no-nonsense "coach potato with an attitude" approach is the wild card in this election.

So far, the Paladino fervor hasn't translated in the polls -- but the petition teams coming together statewide indicate a larger movement is brewing.

Typical of the message being driven by these candidates has been Paladino's grass-roots approach to drawing the support of volunteers both for a Republican line and the creation of a tea party line.

Debates still exist within tea party groups about endorsing candidates, so the jury is still out on the outsider movement.

Bil Bongiorno spoke optimistically for Katz campaign a few days ago

"We are close to having the minimum number in just five days of gathering signatures.  The Westchester Independence Party has endorsed Katz.  Our yard signs are out and money is flowing into the campaign.  We are in great shape."

So perhaps the lesson to political parties would be to tap the tea party's enthusiasm.

Sadly, such lessons are not easily learned by political establishments.

As for these challenger's opponents, News Copy has chosen for just this post to omit their names -- as did the Wall Street Journal article for the most part.

The challengers deserve their day in the sun too, especially in a state where the political establishment frowns on the "status quo" being taken to task.

It appears that this year's petition season is going to change all that in New York.

Rudy Giuliani: If This Was Bush, He Would Have Been Impeached By Now

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe:

"Boy, you guys really give this guy a break that is beyond...They'd have been working on impeachment of Bush by now. If Bush were the president and handled it this way, there'd be like a movement to throw him out of office." "Just try to be fair."

Mika Brzezinski asks Giuliani "What would you do?"

"I know exactly what I would have done. The first thing I would have done is to bring in outside experts who knew as much or more about this than BP because I wouldn't trust just BP to run it for me. I wouldn't want my fate, the fate of my people, the fate of the southern part of this country in the hands of BP. I would have gone and I'd have called up the people you're talking about, the people I talked about the other night. Are there people that are better than BP, I would have asked. The answer is "yes." Are there people that are far better than BP? Yes. Is BP good at this? No. Then give me the people that are the best. After all, I'm the President of the United States or the Mayor of New York City. You can get anything you want. Give me the people that are the best. I want them here-- He hasn't called any of these people. Not a single one. Go ask them. He has not talked to them, he doesn't like them, he doesn't trust them. He's gone to academics because that's what he trusts."

Does this sound too much like Rudy running for president?

North Carolina Rep's Temper Shows In The Polls: It's Not Just The Shove That's Hurting Him

National Review says North Carolina House Rep.Bob Etheridge is now trailing following his assault of an amateur videographer who Democrats insinuate was a tracker.

ANOTHER UPDATE: I like the guys at Public Policy Polling, but I think they have a soft spot for North Carolina Democrats. They declare this to be

Etheridge’s low water mark. If he’s only down by a point after what will certainly be the worst week of the campaign for him he’ll probably be fine this fall even if his winning margin might not match some of the lopsided victories he’s posted in his last few campaigns.

Way too optimistic for Etheridge, I think. Shouldn’t a safe seven-term incumbent like Etheridge have more than a 26 percent favorable rating? In this poll, 34 percent describe themselves as more likely to vote for an Obama health-care-bill supporter like Etheridge, 53 percent say “less likely.” (Yes, Etheridge voted yes on Obamacare.) On TARP, it’s 16 percent more likely, 61 percent less likely. It’s not just the shove that’s hurting him.

Here is the original videotap of Etheridge's temper getting the worst of him -- and the videographer.

.

Using New System, Port Chester Voters Elect Conservatives: Democrats Elect First Latino In Village

The real story last night in the Westchester village of Port Chester's closely monitored election is that conservatives dominated.

The Huffington Post reported on the methodology agreed upon by the Federal government.

On the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice, woters in Port Chester, 25 miles northeast of New York City, are eleced village trustees for the first time since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair.

Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.

Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas.

The Journal News reported that Peruvian-born Luis Marino was one of the winners in the landmark election along with two incumbents, two former trustees and one independent candidate to fill the six seats on the village board.

But the top vote-getter was newcomer Bart Didden, an extremely conservative independent who had previously been rebuffed by Republicans.  Three other winners were former Mayor John Branca, a Conservative; Joseph Kenner, a Republican incumbent; and Sam Ternzi, a Conservative who ran as a Republican.

The second best totals behind Didden were for incumbent Democrat Daniel Brakewood.

The sole registerred Republican who won, Joseph D. Kenner, had also the first black elected to the board two years ago.

To say things are trending to the right is an understatement, especially given Port Chester's demographics and how hard the Federal government worked to tip the scales the other way.

According to The New York Times, the most recent census data from 2006 to 2008 measured that Latinos make up 49 percent of the village’s roughly 28,000 people, though many are noncitizens; about 39 percent are non-Hispanic whites and 7 percent are black.

"Still, in past elections, the preferred candidates for the village board among Latino voters were usually defeated."

The Times missed (or ignored) two important details in Port Chester.

A large enough portion of Latinos in Port Chester are either not registered to vote, or illegal immigrants.

Also, it's not far-fetched to say that the Latino voters ended up voting for Republicans and Conservatives.

Hence, the conservative voting block elected four of the six candidates.

A Chicago blog poked fun at cumulative voting, declaring that Chicago ain't got nothing on Port Chester, New York.

Residents in the New York suburb vote six times, giving whole new meaning to the cliche, "Vote early and often."

 

And, unlike in Chicago, it's legal.

Town Hall called it "affirmative action at the polls"

Whatever happened to the "one man, one vote" principle?  A federal judge and the U.S. Justice Department threw it out.

One Port Chester resident explained how Federal authorities made accomodations for non-English speaking voters -- in terms of providing directions -- but English was the second language in this election ("New bias emerges in Port Chester").

"On Saturday, I cast my votes in the election for the Board of Trustees for the Village of Port Chester. When I arrived at the village office there were two poll workers at the main entrance. When I asked one of the workers where I was supposed to go to cast my vote, she clearly had trouble understanding my question. The second worker then intervened and directed me down the hall, but after having to ask a second time to clarify."

The Associated Press tried to make sense of what they termed an "unusual election"

Obama Cleans Up Gulf Oil Spill -- In His Mind: President Gives 20 Minute "Happy Talk" To Nation

While some were skeptically expecting a "fireside chat" last night, Politico noted that Barack Obama glazed over the realities with a 20 minute "happy talk" speech that was sparse on details.

Don't worry, be happy. of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president.

Rasmussen Reports measured that only 24 percent of America strongly approves of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president.

Last night was just bad acting.  Obama made believe everything was going to be alright.

Real Clear Politics has tracked how Obama's overall job approval has dipped precariously over the past year.

Michael Goodwin of The New York Post observed that Obama needs his own reality check.

"Earth to president: Come on down. He's been hammered relentlessly for not being engaged, but he's still not into the details of the prevention and cleanup."

Charles Krauthhammer told Bill O'Reilly that Obama "gave it a good shot" but that a speech won't stop the spill.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Krauthammer: Obama Gave It A Shot, But The Story Will Not Be His Speech

RealClearPolitics - Video - Krauthammer: Obama Gave It A Shot, But The Story Will Not Be His Speech.

York Kleinhandler's Predatory Practices Against The Elderly: Candidate Faces Lawsuit Over "Stranger-Owned" Life Insurance

Just because a predatory business practice isn't illegal yet doesn't mean it's right.

New York Congressional candidate York Kleinhandler is facing a lawsuit in Florida Federal court for what has been described as a predatory scheme against the elderly.

This Rockland Republican running in the 17th Congressional District is saying what he does for a living is legit, the representation and sale of "stranger-owned" life insurance policies (also known as investor-owned life insurance).

These business practices have been both trumped and frowned upon by the insurance industry; also called the life insurance industries version of the sub-prime debacle -- the reverse-life insurance policy.

As claimed in the lawsuit, Kleinhandler's scheme targets potential insureds, who are elderly individuals.

Kleinhandler has told party leaders that it's not a big deal.

One wonders what 11-term incumbent Congressman Eliot Engel will do to the Republican on the issue of insurance reform all summer and fall.

Kleinhandler's opponent, Tony Mele, is already suggesting that both Engel and Kleinhandler should get a move on reforming the problems with these reverse life insurance policies.

"The law obviously hasn't caught up with this problem," said Mele. "There's a compelling need to stop such unethical business practices." 

Something For Nothing?

Kipilinger's Personal Finance reported 6/22/2008 "Covered for Life -- by a stranger") noted the many problems associated with Stranger Owned Life Insurance (STOLI).

"Deals with strangers are just one more type of policy clamoring for investors, and they lower the amount people can get for legitimate life settlements. It's also against the point of insurance: to protect those who would suffer financially if you die. Several states are changing their laws to put an end to STOLI.

"Insurance companies are trying to stem STOLI sales by asking applicants whether they plan to sell the policy. Saying no and then doing so is fraud and could invalidate the insurance. Some companies are refusing to sell large life policies to anyone over a certain age."

The claims against Kleinhandler include fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy.  The plaintiff, the Alvin Seidenrose Family Trust, is seeking $300,000 in compensatory damages against York Kleinhandler, his brother David and a company whose existence was in question when the contracts with Seidenrose were signed in January of 2006 ... Platinum Credit Ent. IV, LLC.

Kleinhandler's response?

It's a contract dispute.

It's not a big deal.

It's factually baseless, without merit.

Kleinhandler responded in the Rockland County Times.

"The situation in question came about as the result of a business transaction, and is nothing more than a contract dispute.  Allegations to the contrary are solely gamesmanship, factually baseless and completely unsupported by the law."

The greater concern about STOLI by industry watchdogs since 2005 has been that the law hasn't caught up yet with stranger-owned life insurance's flaws, risks and potential fraud.

This article by Stephan R. Leimberg in the May, 2005 issue of Insurance Tax Review about "Stranger-Owned Life Insurance" warned about The Something For Nothing "No Risk" Pitch.  

In defending himself to the voters, Kleinhandler has ignored the need for reform of how these life insurance policies are presented, invited and sold to senior citizens.

"Reports otherwise are either misleading or intentional misinformation.  The original documents associated with this proceeding are public, and I encourage you to review them for yourselves if you are the least bit concerned about what you may have heard about what you may have heard about me."

Kleinhandler's first response to questions by party leaders about the lawsuit had been that "it's not a big deal" -- and he repeated that in the Rockland County Times.

"I say this because I know that when you look at the whole situation, and not just and interpretation by those who oppose my candidacy, you will conclude that the situation is baseless and without merit.  With that being said, I expect this case to be resoloved accordingly in the very near future and will not give these personal attachs any more attention as this topic has already garnered more time than it rightfully deserves."

Who is investing in life settlement policies? Mostly institutions, says one New York insurance agent specializing in this business -- who cautioned against such invested life insurance policies for individuals.

The agent noted that institutions buy pools of policies that yield an average of 11 or 12 percent, pretax.

He advised against this game for individuals: 

"If the insured person lives longer than expected -- maybe because he or she is healthier than was advertis ed or new medications are developed -- your gains on that policy might shrink to zero. You might even have to put up more money to pay the premiums. And there's usually no way out. That's a risk the little guy shouldn't take."

It was a risk Alvin Seidenrose was apparently encouraged to take by David and York Kleinhandler.

Scams Against Elderly

Estate planners consider these "investor-owned" life insurance policies to be scams.

The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reported on how the legality of these policies could impacting investment strategies nationwide.

The article points out that New York “insurable interest” law, which says people can’t procure life insurance on someone they aren’t close to, would call to question most "stranger-owned" schemes -- except the Kleinhandler case transpired in Florida.

The Wall Street Journal has also been covering the Arthur Kramer case, a legal fight over a $56 million investor-owned policy.

The controversy over Arthur Kramer could force reforms of reverse life insurance schemes, already illegal in many states. 

"From 2004 to 2008, tens of thousands of older people sought to make some fast cash by taking out multimillion-dollar policies on their own lives and flipping these to brokers, who resold them to investors like hedge funds and investment banks. The initiative often came from commission-hungry insurance agents, who in some cases paid older people to take out the policies and then misrepresented the seniors' health or wealth to insurance companies. The boom ended for reasons including new state laws, revised actuarial tables and fading investor interest after the 2008 financial crisis."

What York Kleinhandler has done for a living will soon be illegal -- and stranger-owned policies are already illegal in 29 states.

Worse, the questions raised by the Kramer case raise doubts about the legitimacy of so much money being made by strangers -- rather than family members or charities.

Rather than make believe there isn't a problem with investor-owned life insurance policies, perhaps what York Kleinhandler could do as a Congressional candidate is advocate legal reforms.

It's not a big deal, Kleinhandler says.

Anthony Mele believes that Kleinhandler, regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, has a credibility gap that must be addressed.

"I can't see how anyone taking part in such questionable business practices can run for Congress," said Mele. "What is Kleinhandler going to say to every senior citizen in the 17th Congressional District when questions are raised about how he has made money?"

Mele has called on York Kleinhandler to drop out of the race.

---

Here are some more details on SOLI/STOLI ("Investor-Owned Life Insurance").

There has been a Report to Congress On Charity-Owned Life Insurance.

29 states have banned STOLIs.

Gary Sanders, NAIFA’s vice president for securities and state government regulation noted that 29 states have banned STOLIs, also called stranger-originated transations (STATs).

He called STATs “troublesome,” comparing them to stranger-owned life insurance transactions (STOLI), which 29 states have banned. In both STOLIs and STATs, investors get seniors or terminally ill people to obtain policies, for which they are paid a fee, but the investors eventually obtain the death benefit.

The IRI in its prepared comments said STATs are unlawful. “At the very least, these transactions allegedly involve fraud and material misrepresentations,” said Lee Covington, senior vice president and general counsel for the group.

What could be an issue in the coming days is why York Kleinhandler did not disclose such questionable business practices to the Republican Party.

North Carolina Congressman Bob Etheridge Assaults Student: Politics Can Be A Contact Sport

North Carolina Congressman Bob Etheridge demonstrates that politics can be a contact sport.

Etheridge later apologized.

Now the DNC is rationalizing that the anonymous videographers were "trackers" looking to cause trouble.

Politico reported Big Government's Andrew Breitbart pointing out that the Democratic National Committee was perhaps protesting too much.

"If Congressman Etheridge has apologized for his abhorrent behavior then why is the DNC staging a coordinated attack on the people he's apologized to? This is a classic 'kill the messenger' tactic and reinforces why our sources asked for the anonymity we are granting them," said the site's founder, Andrew Breitbart.

Hot Air had different variations of the video.

Three Republican State Senators Blink: Another Emergency Budget Bill Passes 34-27

Republican State Senators Hugh Farley, Roy McDonald and Charles Fuschillo joined with 31 State Senate Democrats to pass this week's New York State budget extender, 34-27.

Democrat Sen. Ruben Diaz, Sr. joined with Republicans and voted no.

Sen. Andrew Lanza of Staten Island, like most Republicans, did not support the emergency budget bill.

Regarding any possible shutdown or the budget not being passed, Lanza said," Don't blame us, please!  The people will not be fooled."

Lanza complained that the budget extenders have become "an excuse not to pass a budget."

The State of Politics blog reported on Senate Finance Chairman Carl Kruger claiming New York was on the "precipice of doom."

Kruger tried to blame Republicans.

The Daily Politics reported on what they termed "the aftermath" -- but isn't this happening again next week?

In the end, a lot of Republicans and Democrats were let off the hook by the vote's wide margin.

Said Sen. Thomas Libous, deputy GOP leader: “I think there’s a definite need to get a budget done and I think at the end of the day shutting down government would have been wrong, it would have been irresponsible. We never had any intention of doing that… But a budget has to get done. This is ridiculous. Government is still functioning but a budget has to get done...

Libous added: "We are not happy with the fact that there is no budget and there seems to be no will or desire to get a budget. One of the problems with extenders is that when you do an extender every week, there’s really no urgency to get a budget done and that’s what we’re seeing here."

Farley, McDonald and Fuschillo ... a lost moment.

Democrats asked Ruben Diaz to get out of the hospital because they needed his vote.

Diaz reason for voting against the emergency bill was different than Republicans.  He objected to cuts to services to "the needy and the poor" -- including cuts in funding to the hospital where he was being treated, Westchester Square Hospital.

A little over a year after Republicans enjoyed "the coup" with "the three amigos" to gain the majority, Democrats demonstrated their control of the State Senate and three new amigos crossed the aisle like chicken little to keep the sky from falling.

Lazio Blinks On Government Shutdown: Legislature Passing 2010-2011 Budget "Piecemeal"

They call it boiling the frog.

The next emergency bill will leave two-thirds of the State budget already passed, according to the State of Politics blog.

"Assuming all goes according to plan and the latest budget extender passes this afternoon without a hitch, the 2010-2011 budget will be almost two-thirds of the way done – all through an unprecedented piecemeal fashion and without a single conference committee."

The frog is dead before it realizes the temperature has doomed it.

Meanwhile, Capitol Confidential had the newest version of tonight's bill.

Dean Skelos didn't indicate either way how Republicans might vote, according to the Daily Politics, but it was clear Democrats would not get off easy (though Capitol Confidential confirmed that at least two Republicans, Hugh Farley and Roy McDonald, are ready to vote with Paterson).

“They had a so-called extender prepared, or draft on Friday,” Skelos said. “We just received a new copy of it. So this is the type of chaotic government that’s coming from the Democrats that control every branch of government. So we are going to take a look at it and we’re going to make a deliberative decision.”

That's a nice way of saying there would be a lot of yelling behind closed doors, particularly between those Republicans already giving in -- and those Republicans readying for a shutdown.

Rick Lazio has blinked.

John Haggerty And The Culture Of Political Free Agency: The Buck Stops Nowhere

Is New York supposed to believe that one man stole a million dollars from the wealthiest mayor on the planet?

NY1 observed that it appears that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is being painted as the victim of John Haggerty's scheme to do little or nothing on Election Day for a cool million.

John Haggerty doesn't sleep on Election Day -- nor does he have a reputation of failing to deliver services to candidates or political parties during campaigns.

Then again, it could be that simple.  When Republican operative Kieran Mahoney somehow spent $3 million as a general consultant to manage Ted Dunn's failed race for Westchester County Executive in 1997, a lot of people felt Mahoney had taken the money and run.

Mahoney apparently spent most of that campaign in an office and people are still unsure what he did.

And often the machinations of a political consultant can be a mystery, except Haggerty had a reputation as a worker.  What went wrong?

To walk away with a million dollars, in a race where a candidate spent many tens of millions, with no accountable sense of how that money was spent?

Welcome to American politics in the new millenium.

The old political machines had more discipline; block captains, precinct commanders, district and ward leaders who reported to bosses who knew when a family needed help from the party or when an area needed more work to get the vote out.

You had far more patronage 40-50 years ago because you had more money readily spent on government.  It's obvious that we as a country can never return back to that era of patronage jobs.  It's not sustainable.

However, we can return to more organized and accountable elections.  We can also return to party structures that allow candidates without money to ascend.  Our problem is that we don't trust the quintessential party boss.  We don't trust the party.  Loyalty is anathema anyway in our society, tragically, but Americans rightfully fear the establishment's grip on the pocketbooks and their freedoms.

The skepticism happened after Watergate.  The political parties were diluted by Federal and State regulations that made hiring someone for purely political reasons a covert act.  Fundraising became more difficult, party leaders were bad and non-partisan activity was good.

It seemed the Democrats were trying to end something evil.  What they were doing instead was replacing community grass-roots politics with the isolated committee, making capitalism illegal in politics and restraining free speech in the process.  Much the same way Marxists wanted anarchy, liberals now want a non-partisan lack of accountability.

Little did anyone know that this weakening of political party structures spawned an era of political free agency.

In a worst case scenario, such a weakening of organized parties allows fascism to leak into a society.  Summon the military and the wealthy to run roughshod over what is left?  It's happened many times in Europe.  It's threatening to happen in America.

Enter the Tea Party movement; people, populism and a return to the basic Constitutional principles.

If this is starting to sound like a Frank Capra movie, ask yourself where all that patriotism and teamwork went after Watergate.  Our society ran inside and didn't come out.

The money went underground.  The donations were now more hidden.  The campaigns were run by committees of donors and/or uber-Madison Avenue soap salesmen who measured every public sentiment.  Suddenly, we were besieged with polling and far more slick political spin than had existed in the time of Tammany Hall.

Keep in mind that someone still had to get the functional jobs done; carrying petitions, making phone calls and ensuring the voters actually showed up.

But politics hasn't been centralized or organized for a long time, particularly in New York State.

One wonders why Brendan Quinn is still feared and sought out.  Such political mechanics had their good days when someone still knew how to run a campaign with precision -- and John Haggerty has been that way for many campaigns in recent years, bedeviling and saving many a candidate.

Are we to believe that one man conned Michael Bloomberg out of a million dollars?

Unfortunately, yes, since far more has been formally stolen from candidates when the stakes were much smaller.  The arrival of the billionaire candidate and some naive tea party candidates allows a whole new generation an opportunity to be fleeced.

The buck stops nowhere.

Also in the middle of this grand prosecution is the Independence Party.

If ever a political party lacked a reason for being, it's the Independence Party.  Its platform is ambiguous.  Its endorsements opportunistic.  It's supposedly what the original Tea Party was supposed to be -- but it's a mystery what precisely it stands for.  It unwittingly draws independent voters who don't want to be associated with an organized party.

Like the Working Families Party, which at least stands stands for something openly (leftist union ACORN-like principles), the Independence Party is now the quintessential throwback to the worst political machines the post-Watergate mania was supposed to end.

Michael Bloomberg also sent a lot of money to the Independence Party, so John Haggerty will have a day in court that could surprisingly share a lot more about the machinations of New York's fringe partisans than most people are afraid to ask.

Without Tom Golisano's millions and his statewide candidacies every four years, the Independence Party never would have drawn such power.

This party was bought and paid for.  It was actually subsidized nicely for many years.

It's not like the idea of an "independent" party is so bad -- but what does it stand for?

Democrats have a platform.  Republicans have a platform.  Conservatives have a platform.  Independence Party leaders too often have a dollar figure associated with their endorsement.  Michael Bloomberg paid that entry fee, as have many others.  The walking wounded who have paid and lost with the Independence Party rivals those who won, so the Manhattan District Attorney's inquiry and prosecution could bring out a lot more than one lone operative hired to do a job.

Someday, America will return to the days of strong political chairs and political machines.  History will record that, absent political bosses, far too much anarchy and waste had consumed our elections after Watergate.  Reformers meant well, possibly.  Instead of freeing the voter and the candidates from political influence, campaigns and the operation of government have been held hostage to lobbyists and political PAC's -- all relying on executive consultants.

At least John Haggerty most days had a measurable job to do.  As bad as his alleged activity might have been, the ugly truth is that consulting in government and politics (and not-for-profit and charities) has become a niche cottage industry that rivals antiquated middle-management in terms of its reason for being.

I would take a good old-fashioned hard-nosed political boss over these spoiled suits anyday.

Republican Operative John Haggerty Indicted In Manhattan District Attorney Probe of Independence Party

The New York Daily News: Trusted Bloomberg aide, John Haggerty, indicted for stealing $1.1M of mayor's campaign funds

John Haggerty, a longtime fixture in Queens Republican politics, is accused of planning a phantom poll-watching operation, then covering his tracks with phony checks - and buying a house with the mayor's money.

"The defendant's fraud was an audacious scheme to steal funds in order to buy a house, cynically misusing a political party process to hide what was common thievery," Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. said as he announced the five-count indictment.

Haggerty gave Bloomberg's campaign a grand plan to spend $1,076,750 on Election Day last fall, Vance said, to field more than 1,700 workers, with cars and radios, to monitor polling places.

Capital Tonight's State of Politics blog:

Haggerty Indicted

"Now it's official"

The Haggerty Indictment, No Comment From Bloomberg

Manhattan DA Cy Vance Jr. announced the indictment of Queens GOP operative John Haggerty, accusing him of creating a “sham election company” (Special Election Operations) and stealing approximately $1.1 million from Mayor Bloomberg.

Haggerty was charged with grand larceny, money laundering and falsifying business records.

UPDATE: That $1.1 million is almost the entire amount ($1.2 million) Bloomberg personally contributed to the state Independence Party in two $600,000 contributions sent to the party’s housekeeping account in October and November.

The party only reported sending $750,000 to Haggerty’s firm, which wasn’t officially incorporated with the state Secretary of State’s office until after the November elections.

The Daily Politics blog:

John Haggerty Indicted In Manhattan DA Indy Party Probe

According to City Hall Bureau Chief Adam Lisberg, the indictment says Haggerty told the Bloomberg campaign he would spend $1,076,750 on Election Day, but only spent $32,000.

As the Daily News recently reported:

"Bloomberg pumped $1.2 million into the Independence Party in the final days of his re-election campaign last fall, and the party hired Haggerty's company Special Election Operations for poll-watching. Haggerty worked in Bloomberg's Sixth Ave. campaign office but was not on the payroll, and told staffers there he was a volunteer. He has never explained how he spent the bulk of the $750,000, but the Daily News reported in February that he bought out his brother's share of their $1.6 million family home six days later."

In other words, Lisberg reports, Haggerty stole $1M from Bloomberg to buy the house.

Haggerty later provided the campaign with three bogus checks to prove he hired workers.

He and Special Election Operations are charged with first-degree grand larceny, second-degree money laundering and first-degree falsifying business records.

According to The Buffalo News, Carl Paladino's campaign had hired Haggerty several weeks ago to manage the Buffalo developer's effort to gather enough signatures on designating petitions to qualify for the September Republican primary.

The Buffalo News reported that Carl Paladino and his campaign are standing behind Haggerty.

At the convention Paladino was fiercely defensive of his aide, telling reporters that Haggerty would remain on his staff despite the ongoing investigation of his activities.

Paladino spokesman Michael R. Caputo followed with a similar statement today, indicating Haggerty should be presumed innocent.

"Unlike a typical career politician, Carl Paladino doesn't throw his friends under the bus," Caputo said. "John joined our campaign just 45 days ago and he quickly became a part of our family. He's a loyal and straightforward man of character.

"We are satisfied with John's version of events and he will remain on our team in his present capacity," he added.

Who's next?

DioGuardi Still Leading U.S. Senate Primary 3-1: Siena Poll Shows Statewide Democrats Slipping

Joe DioGuardi is still way out in front of Bruce Blakeman by a 3-1 margin and David Malpass by a 7-1 margin in a Republican U.S. Senate primary, according to this morning's Siena Poll on statewide races.

This is vindication for DioGuardi, who was unfairly snubbed by a contrarian margin at the State GOP Convention -- and again at the State Independence Party Convention (Kirsten Gillibrand won that endorsement).

The Westchester Republican has been campaigning intensely throughout New York State.

DioGuardi has reached out to parts of upstate New York and conservative voting blocks who rarely get to see a true red meat pro-life conservative Republican running statewide -- and they like it.

Pictured with Joe is Jim Kelly, a Conservative leader who helped the former Congressman barnstorm the state.

Head to head, DioGuardi trails Gillibrand by 18 points.

---

Notable details of the poll:

Andrew Cuomo's favorables are down eight points -- and the Democratic nominee has lost six points against Rick Lazio.

But Cuomo still leads Lazio by over a 2-1 margin.  The Long Island Republican is still stuck at 24 percent.

No bump off the State GOP Convention?

In a Republican primary, Lazio leads Paladino 45-18.

DioGuardi had his own bounce, grabbing eight more points against Gillibrand -- though the Democrat still leads that race 47-29.  Gillibrand leads Blakeman, 47-29, and Malpass, 49-24, with all three Republicans gaining ground on her.

As for State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli against Republican Harry Wilson, Capitol Confidential noted that DiNapoli has failed to resonate with voters,

"There’s trouble for incumbent comptroller Tom DiNapoli. After nearly four years in office, just 23 percent of voters are prepared to re-elect him compared to “someone else.” This statistic, the ‘re-elect number’ is often a good barometer of incumbent strength, with 40 percent being a magical threshold at this stage of things. When matched against Harry Wilson, the hedge fund manager who is DiNapoli’s Republican opponent, DiNapoli wins 42-23. But 36 percent of voters remain undecided, a dangerous swing block."

The New York Daily News blog, Daily Politics, picked up on another problem for Democrats -- and problems for Republicans.

Cuomo's losing ground with independents but has the support of 80 percent of Democrats against either Lazio or Paladino

“As Andrew Cuomo continues to dominate the political scene in New York - and his potential opponents - his still commanding lead has fallen to its lowest level ever, while his favorability rating has fallen below 60 % for the first time in a year and a half,” said Siena pollster Steven Greenberg. “Cuomo’s 59 to 26 % favorability rating is still the strongest of any New York pol, however, there’s been a negative 13-point swing from the 67 to 21 % favorability rating voters gave him three weeks ago.

Added Greenberg: “Cuomo maintains big leads over both Republicans. Although his lead among independent voters fell by about 20 points against both, neither Lazio nor Paladino wins a majority of Republicans against Cuomo, who has the support of at least 80 % of Democrats against either Republican.”

I somehow find it hard to believe that even Andrew Cuomo will have the support of at least 80 percent of Democrats by Election Day.

Newscopy, New York Late PM Update: Sunday, June 13, 2010

FiveThirtyEight has a story on the Federal Reserve's Beige Book.

Everything you wanted to know about our nation's economy but were afraid to ask.

The Nation does its hit piece on Carly Fiorina.

The New Republic pretends to be clueless, asking why liberals are abandoning their deepest belief in the Age of Obama -- -- and then goes after Veronique de Rugy for debunking President Obama's claims about health care reform saving money.

Fire Dog Lake reminds everyone that BP's mistakes will eventually cost someone a lot of money, with Obama proposing BP establish an escrow account for damages that will either be a lesson in accountability or another taxpayer-backed debacle.

Red State gave Indiana's Mike Pence credit for some peacemaking over the Republican's "Big Tent" (ie. Mitch Daniels proposed "truce" on social issues) -- while still standing up for the sanctity of life and traditional marriage.

United Steel Workers President Leo Gerard told Crooks and Liars that the objective of labor is not to be the "ATM Machine" of the Democratic Party.

Just when Rand Paul had survived another media spanking, Think Progress has reported the Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate proposing "mountaintop removal" -- courtesy of Crooks and Liars.

Human Events has video of Mike Pence slamming Nancy Pelosi for being the "least democratic" House Speaker in U.S. history.

The Raw Story reported on the author of the Arizona anti-immigration law working with representatives from 18 other states to have an anti-immigrant law targeting children of immigrants passed "in a third of the country," reports the Arizona Republic.

AlterNet listed 10 things that keep American Conservatives awake at night ("10 Things That Terrify Right-Wingers").

Hot Air shared a New York Times editorial that details America's doubts in President Barack Obama -- though still finds a way to blame President George W. Bush ... "The President's Moment"

Town Hall notes how Bill Clinton has finally started beating Obama.

Mona Charen in National Review explains why Sharron Angle is not a "kook" for wanting to abolish the Department of Education.

Talking Points Memo observed, tongue in cheek, that Alvin Greene probably won because he stayed on message.

Courtesy of Free Republic, Larry Kudlow's analysis of why women won Tuesday night, "Women From the Past vs. Women for the Future"

Daily Kos pointed out that the statewide races weren't the only political show in California this week.

The Hill reported House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn still claiming Alvin Green is a Republican "plant" -- due to the "elephant dung" he witnessed throughout his own Democratic primary.

Real Clear Politics comments on Great Depression ghosts and asks if Obama will end up looking like Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Herbert Hoover.

The Washington Times reports that Barack Obama wants to spend more money.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that Obama wants to spend at least $50 billion more, to start.

Newsmax says that Obama will spend at least $80 billion more, adding to his $1.6 trillion deficit.

Salon points out that some of Sarah Palin's moderate picks on primary day steered her to the center -- and that has drawn the ire of her base.

Politico headline:  Women Scarce On Sunday Shows

Drudge is covering the World Cup.

No different from New York State Governor David Paterson, The Huffington Post reported warnings by President Barack Obama that the sky is falling if Congress does not approve $50 billion in emergency aid.

 

The Political Run-On Sentence That Is Rick Lazio: Some Republicans Blinking On Cutting Spending

For a few seconds, it almost sounded as if Rick Lazio was about to throw a knockout punch with this answer to a question by a Daily Politics reporter.

“I wouldn’t find myself in the position that David Paterson has found himself in because I wouldn’t have signed last year’s budget. It increased spending by three times the rate of inflation ... "

I am going to be difficult and do some surgery on Rick Lazio's statement, that continued like the run-on sentence from hell.

"... But here he, we’re trying to avoid a shut down of government, trying to avoid default on payments. I think these cuts are, I’d have some reservations, but some of them for the most part on balance they need to be done. They’re appropriate and I think Andrew Cuomo needs to show some leadership. I mean, for the people of his own party need to show some support for David Paterson."

Lazio's problem is that he talks too much and distracts away from his initial sound bytes.

"... I think one of the problems right now we have is we’re just looking at the short term and closing gaps ..."

And then the Republican and Conservative nominee inexplicably steered away from discussing cuts in spending and tax relief.

He put forth a worthwhile "pro-growth agenda" but he didn't detail how New York can get there.

It's the same proble most Republicans running for statewide office will have this year in New York.  It's the same problem Republicans have endured fiscally since the Reagan administration blinked in the early 1980's when they should have cut spending.

The late Jack Kemp would have known what to say.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has known what to say -- do so.

Cut to the chase, call firmly for cuts in spending, or perish.

Voters are craving pithy candidates with a hard edge, not any niceties or even civility in many instances.

Voters want candidates rude and rough and tumble enough to say what people don't want to hear.

This is why Carl Paladino is no longer a fluke.

This is also why the State Senate Republicans have an opportunity of a generation if they truly put the Democrats toes to the test.

Paterson and company are already claiming the newest emergency spending bill should be easy for the State Legislature to pass.

Of course, The New York Times continues to rationalize that a shutdown would be an abdication of legislative responsibility.

"... It would be idiotic. A shutdown would disrupt millions of lives, cost millions of dollars and leave state officials scrambling to operate prisons, the State Police and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority — never mind services like motor vehicle offices.

Republicans seem to think that acting so recklessly while Democrats control the government is great politics. They’re wrong. Voters would blame anyone who participates in a shutdown. Doing so would disqualify themselves from re-election, regardless of their party."

Republicans should only be so reckless.

Love him or hate him, George Pataki was a gentleman among rogues.  Pataki should have been unkind, impatient, difficult and fiscally stubborn on conservative principles.  Maybe his legacy would have turned out differently.  Instead, Democrats enjoyed a free ride and a kind hand on their wayward spending for too long.

The three men in the room; Governor Pataki, State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Speaker.

How many years of jokes about this stultifying trio?

It's not funny anymore, if it ever was. 

Now the Democrats are whining, as if these days of wine and roses were never going to end?

They ended in 1998/1999, except a lot of people either never got the memo or refused to read it.

Hence, I have no patience with Rick Lazio trying to rationalize kind words for a governor and his political party at a time when they are petulantly refusing to do their jobs!!!

Could it be that Rick Lazio and some of the State GOP are just too nice to defeat Andrew Cuomo?

Liz Benjamin of Capital Tonight had the details on the current budget extenders.

Alvin Greene's Victory Prompts Questions About His Mental Capacity: Voting Machine Breakdown Suspected

South Carolina's Democratic leaders keep looking for reasons why their U.S. Senate candidate didn't win this week.

Alvin Greene could have won due to problems with voting machines, election fraud or voters fed up with the status quo.

But instead party leaders are now going after his mental capacity.

And last week they tried to make a felony over an alleged obscenity charge.

I am not sure anymore if Frank Capra would be proud.

Frank Capra would be embarrassed.

Meanwhile, no one has a clue what really happened here or why/how Alvin Greene won.

There are reports that Greene never left his house during the entire primary.

Fox News reported that Democratic leaders in South Carolina Democratic Senate nominee Alvin Greene may be intellectually incapable of participating in the general election race.

State Rep. Todd Rutherford told Fox News that he went to Greene's house to discuss with him how Greene succeeded last week in becoming the candidate to challenge Republican Sen. Jim DeMint in the November election, but he found it difficult to decipher an answer.

"About two questions into a conversation with him, it would become apparent that he is not probably fit to answer the questions befitting a Senate candidate," Rutherford said. "If he was put into this, then it is a joke that is funny to all the rest of us, but he doesn't get it -- because I don't know that his mental status is such that he can get it."

Given the results of primaries, special elections and last year's elections, a compelling argument could be made that the Democrats still don't get it.

Meanwhile, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the South Carolina lawmaker who rationalized that Greene is a Republican plant was reported by Hot Air declaring that bipartisanship means you never should say “Cut taxes” ...

Clyburn charged that Republicans were approaching economic recovery with “a simplistic approach.”

“Let’s stop talk about cuttting taxes, cutting taxes, cutting taxes,” he said.

And Democrats are wondering why Vic Raul and company lost?

Problems with voting machines and a swelled number of voters (in some districts, above the number of total registered voters) are being investigated.

Ben Franklin Would Have Been A Blogger: Mind Over Mass Media (NY Times Op-Ed)

Steve Pinker penned this thought Op-Ed in The New York Times on new media potential freeing the human intellect -- or have we trapped ourselves in too many electronic distractions?

Mind Over Mass Media:  New York Times

The effects of consuming electronic media are also likely to be far more limited than the panic implies. Media critics write as if the brain takes on the qualities of whatever it consumes, the informational equivalent of “you are what you eat.” As with primitive peoples who believe that eating fierce animals will make them fierce, they assume that watching quick cuts in rock videos turns your mental life into quick cuts or that reading bullet points and Twitter postings turns your thoughts into bullet points and Twitter postings.

Yes, the constant arrival of information packets can be distracting or addictive, especially to people with attention deficit disorder. But distraction is not a new phenomenon. The solution is not to bemoan technology but to develop strategies of self-control, as we do with every other temptation in life. Turn off e-mail or Twitter when you work, put away your Blackberry at dinner time, ask your spouse to call you to bed at a designated hour.

Or stop blogging?